John Dryden - Delphi Poets Series

by John Dryden

  “There was a preface intended to this play in vindication of it, against two scurrilous libels lately printed; but it was judged, that a defence of this nature would require more room than a preface reasonably could allow. For this cause, and for the importunities of the stationers, who hastened their impression, it is deferred for some little time, and will be printed by itself. Most men are already of opinion, that neither of the pamphlets deserve an answer, because they are stuffed with open falsities, and sometimes contradict each other; but, for once, they shall have a day or two thrown away upon them, though I break an old custom for their sakes, which was, — to scorn them.”

  The resolution, thus announced, did not give universal satisfaction to our author’s friends; one of whom published the following remonstrance, which contains some good sense, in very indifferent poetry:

  An Epode to his worthy Friend John Dryden, to advise him not to answer two malicious Pamphlets against his Tragedy called “The Duke of Guise.” (Marked by Luttrel, 10 March, 1683/4.)

  Can angry frowns rest on thy noble brow

  For trivial things;

  Or, can a stream of muddy water flow

  From the Muses’ springs;

  Or great Apollo bend his vengeful bow

  ‘Gainst popular stings?

  Desist thy passion then; do not engage

  Thyself against the wittols of the age.

  Should we by stiff Tom Thimble’s faction fall,

  Lord, with what noise

  The Coffee throats would bellow, and the Ball

  O’ the Change rejoice,

  And with the company of Pinner’s Hall

  Lift up their voice!

  Once the head’s gone, the good cause is secure;

  The members cannot long resist our power.

  Crop not their humours; let the wits proceed

  Till they have thrown

  Their venom up; and made themselves indeed

  Rare fops o’ergrown:

  Let them on nasty garbage prey and feed,

  Till all is done;

  And, by thy great resentment, think it fit

  To crush their hopes, as humble as their wit.

  Consider the occasion, and you’ll find

  Yourself severe,

  And unto rashness much more here inclined,

  By far, than they’re:

  Consider them as in their proper kind,

  ‘Tween rage and fear,

  And then the reason will appear most plain, —

  A worm that’s trod on will turn back again.

  What if they censure without brain or sense,

  ’Tis now the fashion;

  Each giddy fop endeavours to commence

  A reformation.

  Pardon them for their native ignorance,

  And brainsick passion;

  For, after all, true men of sense will say, —

  Their works can never parallel thy play.

  ‘Twere fond to pamper spleen, ‘cause owls detest

  The light of day;

  Or real nonsense, which endures no test,

  Condemns thy play.

  Lodge not such petty trifles in thy breast,

  But bar their sway;

  And let them know, that thy heroic bays

  Can scorn their censure, as it doth their praise.

  Think not thy answer will their nice reclaim,

  Whose heads are proof

  Against all reason, and in spite of shame

  Will stand aloof;

  ‘Twould cherish further libels on thy fame,

  Should these thee move.

  Stand firm, my Dryden, maugre all their plots,

  Thy bays shall flourish when their ivy rots.

  But if you are resolved to break your use,

  And basely sin,

  In answer; I’ll be sworn some haggard muse

  Has you in her gin;

  Or in a fit you venture to abuse

  Your Polyhymn’,

  You may serve him so far: But if you do,

  All your true friends, sir, will reflect on you.

  The remonstrance of this friendly poet was unavailing; Dryden having soon after published the following Vindication.

  THE VINDICATION OF THE DUKE OF GUISE.

  In the year of his majesty’s happy Restoration, the first play I undertook was the “Duke of Guise;” as the fairest way, which the Act of Indemnity had then left us, of setting forth the rise of the late rebellion; and by exploding the villainies of it upon the stage, to precaution posterity against the like errors.

  As this was my first essay, so it met with the fortune of an unfinished piece; that is to say, it was damned in private, by the advice of some friends to whom I shewed it; who freely told me, that it was an excellent subject; but not so artificially wrought, as they could have wished; and now let my enemies make their best of this confession.

  The scene of the Duke of Guise’s return to Paris, against the king’s positive command, was then written. I have the copy of it still by me, almost the same which it now remains, being taken verbatim out of Davila; for where the action is remarkable, and the very words related, the poet is not at liberty to change them much; and if he will be adding 138 any thing for ornament, it ought to be wholly of a piece. This do I take for a sufficient justification of that scene, unless they will make the pretended parallel to be a prophecy, as well as a parallel of accidents, that were twenty years after to come. Neither do I find, that they can suggest the least colour for it in any other part of the tragedy.

  But now comes the main objection, — why was it stopt then? To which I shall render this just account, with all due respects to those who were the occasion of it.

  Upon a wandering rumour (which I will divide betwixt malice and mistake) that some great persons were represented, or personated in it, the matter was complained of to my Lord Chamberlain; who, thereupon, appointed the play to be brought to him, and prohibited the acting of it until further order; commanding me, after this, to wait upon his lordship; which I did, and humbly desired him to compare the play with the history, from whence the subject was taken, referring to the first scene of the fourth act, whereupon the exception was grounded, and leaving Davila (the original) with his lordship. This was before midsummer; and about two months after, I received the play back again from his lordship, but without any positive order whether it should be acted or not; neither was Mr Lee, or myself, any way solicitous about it. But this indeed 139 I ever said, that it was intended for the king’s service; and his majesty was the best judge, whether it answered that end or no; and that I reckoned it my duty to submit, if his majesty, for any reason whatsoever, should deem it unfit for the stage. In the interim, a strict scrutiny was made, and no parallel of the great person designed, could be made out. But this push failing, there were immediately started some terrible insinuations, that the person of his majesty was represented under that of Henry the Third; which if they could have found out, would have concluded, perchance, not only in the stopping of the play, but in the hanging up of the poets. But so it was, that his majesty’s wisdom and justice acquitted both the one, and the other; and when the play itself was almost forgotten, there were orders given for the acting of it.

  This is matter of fact; and I have the honour of so great witnesses to the truth of what I have delivered, that it will need no other appeal. As to the exposing of any person living, our innocency is so clear, that it is almost unnecessary to say, it was not in my thought; and, as far as any one man can vouch for another, I do believe it was as little in Mr Lee’s. And now since some people have been so busy as to cast out false and scandalous surmises, how far we two agreed upon the writing of it, I must do a common right both to Mr Lee and myself, to declare publicly, that it was at his earnest desire, without any solicitation of mine, that this play was produced betwixt us. After the writing of Œdipus, I passed a promise to join with him in another; and he happened to claim the performance of that promise, just upon the finish
ing of a poem, 140 when I would have been glad of a little respite before the undertaking of a second task. The person, that passed betwixt us, knows this to be true; and Mr Lee himself, I am sure, will not disown it; So that I did not “seduce him to join with me,” as the malicious authors of the Reflections are pleased to call it; but Mr Lee’s loyalty is above so ridiculous a slander. I know very well, that the town did ignorantly call and take this to be my play; but I shall not arrogate to myself the merits of my friend. Two-thirds of it belonged to him; and to me only the first scene of the play; the whole fourth act, and the first half, or somewhat more, of the fifth.

  The pamphleteers, I know, do very boldly insinuate, that, “before the acting of it, I took the whole play to myself; but finding afterwards how ill success it had upon the stage, I threw as much of it as possibly I could upon my fellow.” Now here are three damned lies crowded together into a very little room; first, that I assumed any part of it to myself, which I had not written; wherein I appeal, not only to my particular acquaintance, but to the whole company of actors, who will witness for me, that, in all the rehearsals, I never pretended to any one scene of Mr Lee’s, but did him all imaginable right, in his title to the greater part of it. I hope I may, without vanity, affirm to the world, that I never stood in need of borrowing another man’s reputation; and I have been as little guilty of the injustice, of laying claim to any thing which was not my own. Nay, I durst almost refer myself to some of the angry poets on the other side, whether I have not rather countenanced and assisted their beginnings, than hindered them from rising. The two 141 other falsities are, the “ill success of the play,” and “my disowning it.” The former is manifestly without foundation; for it succeeded beyond my very hopes, having been frequently acted, and never without a considerable audience; and then it is a thousand to one, that, having no ground to disown it, I did not disown it; but the universe to a nutshell that I did not disown it for want of success, when it succeeded so much beyond my expectation. But my malignant adversaries are the more excusable for this coarse method of breaking in upon truth and good manners, because it is the only way they have to gratify the genius and the interest of the faction together; and never so much pains taken neither, to so very, very little purpose. They decry the play, but in such a manner, that it has the effect of a recommendation. They call it “a dull entertainment;” and that is a dangerous word, I must confess, from one of the greatest masters in human 142 nature, of that faculty. Now I can forgive them this reproach too, after all the rest; for this play does openly discover the original and root of the practices and principles, both of their party and cause; and they are so well acquainted with all the trains and mazes of rebellion, that there is nothing new to them in the whole history. Or what if it were a little insipid, there was no conjuring that I remember in “Pope Joan;” and the “Lancashire Witches” were without doubt the most insipid jades that ever flew upon a stage; and even these, by the favour of a party, made a shift to hold up their heads. Now, if we have out-done these plays in their own dull way, their authors have some sort of 143 privilege to throw the first stone; but we shall rather chuse to yield the point of dulness, than contend for it, against so indisputable a claim.

  But “matters of state (it seems) are canvassed on the stage, and things of the gravest concernment there managed;” and who were the aggressors, I beseech you, but a few factious, popular hirelings, that by tampering the theatres, and by poisoning the people, made a play-house more seditious than a conventicle; so that the loyal party crave only the same freedom of defending the government, which the other took beforehand of exposing and defaming it. There was no complaint of any disorders of the stage, in the bustle that was made (even to the forming of a party) to uphold a farce of theirs. Upon the first day, the whole faction (in a manner) appeared; but after one sight of it, they sent their proxies of serving-men and porters, to clap in the right of their patrons; and it was impossible ever to have gotten off the nonsense of three hours for half-a-crown, but for the providence of so congruous an audience. Thus far, I presume, 144 the reckoning is even, for bad plays on both sides, and for plays written for a party. I shall say nothing of their poets’ affection to the government; unless upon an absolute and an odious necessity. But to return to the pretended Parallel.

  I have said enough already to convince any man of common sense, that there neither was, nor could be, any Parallel intended; and it will farther appear, from the nature of the subject; there being no relation betwixt Henry the Third and the Duke of Guise, except that of the king’s marrying into the family of Lorraine. If a comparison had been designed, how easy had it been either to have found a story, or to have invented one, where the ties of nature had been nearer? If we consider their actions, or their persons, a much less proportion will be yet found betwixt them; and if we bate the popularity, perhaps none at all. If we consider them in reference to their parties, the one was manifestly the leader; the other, at the worst, is but misled. The designs of the one tended openly to usurpation; those of the other may yet be interpreted more fairly; and I hope, from the natural candour and probity of his temper, that it will come to a perfect submission and reconcilement at last. But that which perfectly destroys this pretended Parallel is, that our picture of the Duke of Guise is exactly according to the original in the history; his actions, his manners, nay, sometimes his very words, are so justly copied, that whoever has read him in Davila, sees him the same here. There is no going out of the way, no dash of a pen to make any by-feature resemble him to any other man; and indeed, excepting his ambition, there was not in France, or perhaps in any other country, any man of his age 145 vain enough to hope he could be mistaken for him. So that if you would have made a Parallel, we could not. And yet I fancy, that where I make it my business to draw likeness, it will be no hard matter to judge who sate for the picture. For the Duke of Guise’s return to Paris contrary to the king’s order, enough already has been said; it was too considerable in the story to be omitted, because it occasioned the mischiefs that ensued. But in this likeness, which was only casual, no danger followed. I am confident there was none intended; and am satisfied that none was feared. But the argument drawn from our evident design is yet, if possible, more convincing. The first words of the prologue spake the play to be a Parallel, and then you are immediately informed how far that Parallel extended, and of what it is so: “The Holy League begot the Covenant, Guisards got the Whig, &c.” So then it is not, (as the snarling authors of the Reflections tell you) a Parallel of the men, but of the times; a Parallel of the factions, and of the leaguers. And 146 every one knows that this prologue was written before the stopping of the play. Neither was the name altered on any such account as they insinuate, but laid aside long before, because a book called the Parallel had been printed, resembling the French League to the English Covenant; and therefore we thought it not convenient to make use of another man’s title. The chief person in the tragedy, or he whose disasters are the subject of it, may in reason give the name; and so it was called the “Duke of Guise.” Our intention therefore was to make the play a Parallel betwixt the Holy League, plotted by the house of Guise and its adherents, with the Covenant plotted by the rebels in the time of king Charles I. and those of the new Association, which was the spawn of the old Covenant.

  But this parallel is plain, that the exclusion of the lawful heir was the main design of both parties; and that the endeavours to get the lieutenancy of France established on the head of the League, is in effect the same with offering to get the militia out of the king’s hand (as declared by parliament,) and consequently, that the power of peace and war should be wholly in the people. It is also true that the tumults in the city, in the choice of their officers, have had no small resemblance with a Parisian rabble: and I am afraid that both their faction and ours had the same good lord. I believe also, that if Julian had been written and calculated for the Parisians, as it was for our sectaries, one of their sheriffs might have mistaken too, and called
him 147 Julian the Apostle. I suppose I need not push this point any further; where the parallel was intended, I am certain it will reach; but a larger account of the proceedings in the city may be expected from a better hand, and I have no reason to forestall it. In the mean time, because there has been no actual rebellion, the faction triumph in their loyalty; which if it were out of principle, all our divisions would soon be ended, and we the happy people, which God and the constitution of our government have put us in condition to be; but so long as they take it for a maxim, that the king is but an officer in trust, that the people, or their representatives, are superior to him, judges of miscarriages, and have power of revocation, it is a plain case, that whenever they please they may take up arms; and, according to their doctrine, lawfully too. Let them jointly renounce this one opinion, as in conscience and law they are bound to do, because both scripture and acts of parliament oblige them to it, and we will then thank their obedience for our quiet, whereas now we are only beholden to them for their fear. The miseries of the last war are yet too fresh in all men’s memory; and they are not rebels, only because they have been so too lately. An author of theirs has told us roundly the west-country proverb; 148 Chud eat more cheese, and chad it; their stomach is as good as ever it was; but the mischief on’t is, they are either muzzled, or want their teeth. If there were as many fanatics now in England, as there were christians in the empire, when Julian reigned, I doubt we should not find them much inclined to passive obedience; and, “Curse ye Meroz” would be oftener preached upon, than “Give to Cæsar,” except in the sense Mr Hunt means it.

  Having clearly shewn wherein the parallel consisted, which no man can mistake, who does not wilfully, I need not justify myself, in what concerns the sacred person of his majesty. Neither the French history, nor our own, could have supplied me, nor Plutarch himself, were he now alive, could have found a Greek or Roman to have compared to him, in that eminent virtue of his clemency; even his enemies must acknowledge it to be superlative, because they live by it. Far be it from flattery, if I say, that there is nothing under heaven, which can furnish me with a parallel; and that, in his mercy, he is of all men the truest image of his Maker.